Articles

Battlefield Bad Company 2 Postmortem

DICE answers our questions about the past and future of the hit series.

DICE's Battlefield: Bad Company 2 may be one of the biggest online shooters right now, but it's only the latest in the Sweden-based developer's long line of acclaimed multiplayer games. To learn more about the design choices that went into BC2, what DICE has learned from its own games and those of other developers, and what it's like trying to break out of the company's own unofficial, self-imposed "multiplayer developer" title, we recently caught up with BC2 producer Gordon Van Dyke at this year's PAX East expo.

GameSpy: Battlefield started out as a PC franchise. Would you say that the focus for DICE has shifted to consoles? The first Bad Company didn't even come out for PC, after all...

Gordon Van Dyke: It's not a shift in focus, but more like somewhere we wanted to explore. I think what happened was, consoles have reached a level where we could introduce people to something we had been giving to PC players for quite a while. It was an exciting opportunity. So we really focused on that. There are more expectations of us, for the PC game. It almost kind of makes you weary, you get nervous, you put these unrealistic expectations on yourself as a developer. You forget that the whole premise is to get something out there that's really fun. We realized that BC2 was going to provide that. We have a lot to live up to on the PC, and I think the original Bad Company's focus was to kind of...reintroduce Battlefield to a new audience on the console. BC2 is like, maybe in retrospect, we could have given BC1 to the PC but we didn't. We didn't feel like it was worth it to go back and try and do that, but we thought, "Well, let's give them BC2." It lived up to expectations, I think, what PC players were expecting. Especially for a new engine.

GameSpy: DICE often seems to get pigeonholed, in a lot of people's minds, as a multiplayer developer. Do you guys feel like that's accurate, or is it unfair? Is this something that you'd like to break away from?

Gordon Van Dyke: It's true. [chuckles] I mean, as you can see, I think even EA believes in us. That's something we know we can do really, really well. What we want to do is get better, though, at single-player. We're not claiming to be the, you know, Heavy Rain of single-player experiences, but we want to bring it to a level that's really engaging and fun, similar to our multiplayer. I think we're getting better and better at that. It just takes time. I don't think we suck at all... But when you have something that stands out as top-notch, one of the best out there, it makes everything else, even if it's really good, seem that much weaker, unfortunately.

GameSpy: Do you think your audience influenced the direction the story took? BC2 tells a pretty basic story -- bad guys versus good guys, a tale of camaraderie, like a blockbuster movie. Was there ever a time that the story maybe went deeper or touched on themes that weren't so lighthearted?

Gordon Van Dyke: Yeah. Absolutely. BC1 had even more humor, but what we realized was there was a severe disconnect from the fantasy of what a first-person game kind of naturally gives you. You are, basically, Action Jackson, some super-badass Rambo kind of character. No matter how you try and put it. You're always super-extraordinary. The story in BC1 kind of created a disconnect, because you were maybe not that super-extraordinary guy, but when you were playing you were. So we wanted to fuse that together, but not lose that sense of humor, so we kept the same characters, kept the same voice actors, and just made what they were going for more serious and more about everyone, not just themselves. It naturally created that experience.

GameSpy: So would you say it's tough to make a first-person shooter that presents an emotional story?

Gordon Van Dyke: Absolutely. I do think it is a big challenge. And maybe it's not something that a developer should do, when they're making a first-person shooter. I mean, you need to think about the audience and what they players are expecting from that game. If I want an experience like Heavy Rain, I go play Heavy Rain. I don't go play BC2. I played Heavy Rain and I f***ing loved that game, I loved the experience, and I want to go back and play it again and see how, if I do different decisions, how it changes that ending. But that's the beauty of it, that's why we have different kinds of games. It's because I don't want to play one game and get everything. I want to play BC2 because I want those vehicles, I want that warfare, I want that first-person shooter experience. If I want something that's a bit faster and more aggressive, I'll even go play Modern Warfare 2, it gives you a different experience. And if I want that story-driven game, I'll play Heavy Rain. I love that, I want options, and I hope that one developer doesn't try and encapsulate everything into one game. Then you're actually taking away choices and new experiences.